The thing is, I only want to contribute building blocks to a good and better future for everyone (animals, humans) and everything (nature, things). Otherwise I’d rather work at a nice coffeeshop, bookshop, library or at something else local with my hands (preferably not cleaning toilets).
This job is a test, a learning ground. For me. It’s a big, prosperous, rich company. A good place to learn what is wrong with the current economic system and what space there is for improvement. Where are we exactly stuck? Is it as simple as the stakeholders who need maximum profit at most cost, the stock market? Or is the problem of a huge system many are bowing down to – to more or less degree – more complex than that?
Of course, having a nice salary is comfortable. A nice reason to do something I want to contribute to: international environmental law. Nothing wrong with that?
It’s a company that is greener than most, that is publicly out and proud about it’s incentive to contribute good to the world – socially, environmentally – and still it’s not enough for me. Idealism. It is said that the company cannot comply more with morals than it does, without losing profit. And then, it’s eat or be eaten by other companies. Being sustainable costs profit. That’s not the whole truth. Wouldn’t the majority of customers cheer at truly good initiatives, or are we too used to badness (regardless of what the majority has learned about good and bad as children), to focussed on getting ahead, to get “our daily bread,” or be left behind? This company does what they can in their market, can’t they disrupt the market and try something new? First movers problem excuse (look it up, quite simple and boring). They follow the new rules Ursula von der Leyen is active at implementing in the EU, the notorious Green Deal. What not every big company does (small ones have different rule books), shocker. However, they don’t go further than the rules. That would create unfair competition. The change has to come from above, from the rule-makers (politics) for everyone at once. One of the reasons I am in law, it’s one of the ways to truly change the commons game problem: if I don’t fish my fish to the maximum, my competition will grow by taking my fish and I will shrink. Big, bigger, biggest.
So why is politics so slow with implementing the change that is so desperately needed if we “all” want to stay or become healthy and happy? Isn’t it a miracle there are still resources for us all at all? How much beauty are we willing to sacrifice? Isn’t that an important part of European culture and culture everywhere? Why is politics so very weak against the current global economical system? And what does it mean if you know the answers to these questions?
Is we are rich, loaded in a world that is ugly and unhealthy. What is than the meaning of those coins? Living in artificial realms and worlds? Is science up for that? Do we still have enough resources for that? Will that be in time for the majority, or the comfortable rich families and people?
What do we have without wild, free nature? The only current living system in perpetuem mobile. How much are we willing to destruct and uglify (except for those private palm beach holidays) for our coins and artificial future in Shangri la? Are we truly all accepting that future, contributing to that future, betting on that future, bowing down to that future, do we simply have no choice? Apparently most don’t see anything ugly about sky-scrapers, isn’t the contrast with old buildings and atmosphere huge?
What am I complaining and moody about? Isn’t there enough niceness, and comfort and culture left? At least within our homes. Our “privacy.”
And to return to my job, isn’t that still working on the system. Shouldn’t we ignore that system to the max and create alternative local beautiful futures and realities as much as possible?
I’m researching, learning. For instance about corporate cultures. More on that later. And, I’m taking the reader with me on my journey towards improvement.
Of course, we need some structure, order, predictability. Humans are an animal specie too. We like stability. But at what cost? And what is the value of true freedom, wildness, creativity? Is there still enough space for true innovation, not sameness. Innovation beyond the current systems? (more on that later) And where are the massive investments in such projects, the human capital? It happens. At what level of quality? At what level of advancement. Why are holistic worlds not merging to more extent with scientific and technological advancement? Should we be scared and mistrusting of such ideas? Why is quantum physics advanced to such a high degree, but are our realities advancing so very slowly, and with so many problems and challenges (but we have electric cars now..).
The conclusion is probably that rich or rich enough means safe and included. That nature can be sacrificed as long as we stay healthy enough.
More later..
Protestbird